A probabilistic approach to calculate capacity of signalized intersections with a red light camera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In recent years, red light cameras (RLCs) have been installed at many signalized intersections. The main reason behind installing RLCs is to reduce intersection‐related accidents caused because of a driver's behavior to cross the intersection when the signal turns red. By nature, if the driver is aware of the presence of RLC his or her driving behavior is bound to change. This behavioral change, however, may be intentional or unintentional. This may influence the utilization of yellow intervals resulting in a possible increase in dilemma zone, which in turn, may reduce the service capacity of the intersection. To accurately capture this capacity reduction, we present a probabilistic approach to modify the saturation flow rate formula in the Highway Capacity Manual that is currently used to calculate the capacity of signalized intersections. We introduce a new factor in the saturation flow rate calculation called red light reduction factor, to account for the capacity reduction owing to RLCs. Using field data from Baltimore, Maryland, we establish a relationship for the red light reduction factor. We then show that capacity of RLC‐equipped intersections is generally lower than that without RLCs. Although the percentage reduction in capacity of a single intersection may not seem significant, the cumulative impact of such reduction in a heavily traveled road network may be quite significant, resulting in significant loss in travel time. In future works, the systemwide capacity reduction owing to the presence of RLCs can be studied in congested transportation networks. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".